[HarleyD]

Neither. Examination of the best sources that we have do not permit it to be called infallible.

And there you go. Thanks for admitting that you don't REALLY believe in the infallibility of scripture. Few Catholics will make such an admission. It puts them at odds with early Church teaching (and teaching as late as the 1600s). But then it's not the first major doctrine the Church has changed from what was taught by the fathers. The Church has left its first love a long time ago.

The early Nicene fathers never taught that the interpretation was infallible through Church teachings. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. Jerome, Chrysostom and others must be turning over in their crypts.

John Chrysostom, who lived between 347-407 AD, wrote: "Listen carefully to me..Procure books [of the Bible] that will be medicines for the soul. At least get a copy of the New Testament, the Apostle's epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If you encounter grief, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from them comfort for your trouble, whether it be loss, or death, or bereavement over the loss of relations. Don't simply dive into them. Swim in them. Keep them constantly in your mind. The cause of all evils is the failure to know the Scriptures well."

What gives you the authority to do so? Are you being your own Pope in declaring doctrine?

I don't have to be a Pope to read what the early church fathers wrote on the inspiration of scripture and declared at council after council. The Church plainly no longer follows the teachings of the fathers. This is a case in point. It is disingenuous for Catholics to pretend that they do.

[MarkBsnr]

And there you go. Thanks for admitting that you don't REALLY believe in the infallibility of scripture. Few Catholics will make such an admission. It puts them at odds with early Church teaching (and teaching as late as the 1600s). But then it's not the first major doctrine the Church has changed from what was taught by the fathers. The Church has left its first love a long time ago.

That's not what I said. I said that you do not have infallible Scripture in your hands. The Early Church did. That separates them from your bunch. The early Nicene fathers never taught that the interpretation was infallible through Church teachings. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. Jerome, Chrysostom and others must be turning over in their crypts.

Really? The Church has always taught that.

I don't have to be a Pope to read what the early church fathers wrote on the inspiration of scripture and declared at council after council. The Church plainly no longer follows the teachings of the fathers. This is a case in point. It is disingenuous for Catholics to pretend that they do.

Interesting statement. Which Councils are you referring to?